J Physiol Wellcome Trust-funded researchers
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Physiol Vol 423 pp 299-310
Copyright © 1990 by The Physiological Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gandevia, S C
Right arrow Articles by Kilbreath, S L
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gandevia, S C
Right arrow Articles by Kilbreath, S L

Accuracy of weight estimation for weights lifted by proximal and distal muscles of the human upper limb.

 S C Gandevia and S L Kilbreath

Department of Neurology, Prince Henry Hospital, Sydney, Australia.

1. It is well established that tactile acuity is greater over digits than over the proximal parts of the upper limb and that the corticospinal projection is especially dense for distal muscles. To determine whether the acuity for judgements of forces exerted by distal muscles differed from that for proximal muscles, a weight-matching task was used with first dorsal interosseous, flexor pollicus longus and elbow flexors. 2. Reference weights equivalent to approximately 3% (light) and 15% (heavy) of the maximal voluntary contraction were lifted by one muscle group on the left. They were matched with a variable weight, lifted by the same group, on the right. 3. In naive subjects, the coefficient of variation for repeated estimates of perceived heaviness was significantly lower for proximal than distal muscles. Measured in this way, 'accuracy' (i.e. reproducibility of the estimates) was not greater for the intrinsic muscles of the hand. This result could not be explained by the way in which the weights were supported by the index finger. When the data were expressed as the relative difference between the reference and the matched weight, each muscle group behaved similarly. 4. For a particular muscle, accuracy was greater when the heavy rather than the light weights were lifted. 5. Given that estimates of forces and heaviness are biased by signals of central motor command (McCloskey, 1981; Gandevia, 1987; Cafarelli, 1988; Jones, 1988). these signals could be graded no more finely for distal than proximal muscles. Furthermore, relative accuracy was greater for forces at the high rather than the low end of the comfortable 'matching' range of force for a particular muscle.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Neurophysiol.Home page
A. M. Bertrand, C. Mercier, P. L. W. Shun, D. Bourbonnais, and J. Desrosiers
Effects of Weakness on Symmetrical Bilateral Grip Force Exertion in Subjects With Hemiparesis
J Neurophysiol, April 1, 2004; 91(4): 1579 - 1585.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci.Home page
T. Hortobágyi, D. Tunnel, J. Moody, S. Beam, and P. DeVita
Low- or High-Intensity Strength Training Partially Restores Impaired Quadriceps Force Accuracy and Steadiness in Aged Adults
J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci., January 1, 2001; 56(1): 38B - 47.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1990 The Physiological Society.